Moa or Mirad

**Bravo Whiskey** · July 7th, 2010, 08:06 PM

Both the reticle and the turrents will be the same format.
Which would you go with and why?

TIA

**ReconLdr** · July 7th, 2010, 09:18 PM

This comes down to personal preference. This is like asking "which gun should I buy?" In order to answer your question I need more information.

What is your intended use for the scope and rifle? If you plan to shoot bench rest, either will work since you will know the range to target and be able to shoot an actual zero for each distance on the given range.

If you plan to shoot UKD (Unknown Distance) and need to estimate the range to target and adjust the scope based on range and wind speed/direction.

I prefer MOA. When I am shooting, I see adjustments in inches not mils. (this just happens to be how my ADD brain works) I know a lot of shooters that think mils are easier to use. I believe that is true for range estimation, but for adjustments to a scope, MOA makes more sense to me. (that whole ADD thing again)

Some other things to consider:
1) Most ranges here in the US are measured in yards not meters. Unless you have a 100m range, you will have to SWAG (Scientific Wild Ass Guess) your 100m dope. This is where you will want to be to make your dope changes. (makes the math easier)
2) If you "think" in yards/inches you will have to learn to "think" in meters/mils or vise versa. This may not sound hard but some people have a hard time with it. (myself included)
3) If you only plan to hunt in Pa, either will work since most deer are taken at relatively short range and a 100yd zero will suffice.

Hope this helps...

**LightningMcQueen784** · July 7th, 2010, 09:30 PM

I chose the mil system for my latest scope purchase.

Why? because I think it's just a little easier. I am used to 10-based math, and that's what the mil-radian system uses. I'm sure you can convert MOA into some metric system too, but it's a lot more math, since it's angle based.

Mil's are easier because whatever measurements you use, just divide by 1000. So if the target is 1000X away (where X = meters, yards, inches, sandwiches, hotdogs), 1 mil measures exactly 1X. So if your target is 1234567 palm measurements away, then 1 mil out there is exactly 1324.567 palms.

At a 100 yards, 1 mil is .1 yard or 3.6 inch. Similarly, at 175m, it's exactly .175m or 17.5cm. Used the other way, if you see a 20cm target that measures 1 mil in your scope, you know it's 20,000cm or 200m away.

To me, coupled with metric measurements, the math is just MUCH simpler. Everything is just a 1000 to 1 ratio.

**aubie515** · July 7th, 2010, 09:41 PM

Originally Posted by LightningMcQueen784

I chose the mil system for my latest scope purchase.

Why? because I think it's just a little easier. I am used to 10-based math, and that's what the mil-radian system uses. I'm sure you can convert MOA into some metric system too, but it's a lot more math, since it's angle based.

Mil's are easier because whatever measurements you use, just divide by 1000. So if the target is 1000X away (where X = meters, yards, inches, sandwiches, hotdogs), 1 mil measures exactly 1X. So if your target is 1234567 palm measurements away, then 1 mil out there is exactly 1324.567 palms.

At a 100 yards, 1 mil is .1 yard or 3.6 inch. Similarly, at 175m, it's exactly .175m or 17.5cm. Used the other way, if you see a 20cm target that measures 1 mil in your scope, you know it's 20,000cm or 200m away.

To me, coupled with metric measurements, the math is just MUCH simpler. Everything is just a 1000 to 1 ratio.

+1 Nothing I need to add to this fine reply.

**ReconLdr** · July 7th, 2010, 11:04 PM

Originally Posted by LightningMcQueen784

I chose the mil system for my latest scope purchase.

Why? because I think it's just a little easier. I am used to 10-based math, and that's what the mil-radian system uses. I'm sure you can convert MOA into some metric system too, but it's a lot more math, since it's angle based.

Mil's are easier because whatever measurements you use, just divide by 1000. So if the target is 1000X away (where X = meters, yards, inches, sandwiches, hotdogs), 1 mil measures exactly 1X. So if your target is 1234567 palm measurements away, then 1 mil out there is exactly 1324.567 palms.

At a 100 yards, 1 mil is .1 yard or 3.6 inch. Similarly, at 175m, it's exactly .175m or 17.5cm. Used the other way, if you see a 20cm target that measures 1 mil in your scope, you know it's 20,000cm or 200m away.

To me, coupled with metric measurements, the math is just MUCH simpler. Everything is just a 1000 to 1 ratio.

Great post except for the bold parts... I know what you were trying to say, but you were a little misleading....

Mils are an angular measurement as well:

1mil = .1m at 100m
1mil = .2m at 200m
1mil = .3m at 300m
1mil = .4m at 400m
1mil = .5m at 500m
1mil = .6m at 600m
1mil = .7m at 700m
1mil = .8m at 800m
1mil = .9m at 900m
1mil = 1m at 1000m

This is why the mil relation formula works for range estimation. By knowing the actual size of an object you can use the apparent size (as measured with your reticle mil-dots) and apply some geek math to get the range. Example: actual size/mils measured * 1000 = Range in meters

The Army says the Average height of a man is 1.75m and you measure his height with your reticle as 1mil you can estimate his range by doing some math. 1.75/1*1000=1750m

So by your example at 1000x (hot dogs, meters, yards etc) hot dogs = yards = meters = 1mil is not a good example and could confuse a LR newbie.

**LightningMcQueen784** · July 7th, 2010, 11:44 PM

Originally Posted by ReconLdr

Great post except for the bold parts... I know what you were trying to say, but you were a little misleading....

Mils are an angular measurement as well:

1mil = .1m at 100m
1mil = .2m at 200m
1mil = .3m at 300m
1mil = .4m at 400m
1mil = .5m at 500m
1mil = .6m at 600m
1mil = .7m at 700m
1mil = .8m at 800m
1mil = .9m at 900m
1mil = 1m at 1000m

This is why the mil relation formula works for range estimation. By knowing the actual size of an object you can use the apparent size (as measured with your reticle mil-dots) and apply some geek math to get the range. Example: actual size/mils measured * 1000 = Range in meters

The Army says the Average height of a man is 1.75m and you measure his height with your reticle as 1mil you can estimate his range by doing some math. 1.75/1*1000=1750m

So by your example at 1000x (hot dogs, meters, yards etc) hot dogs = yards = meters = 1mil is not a good example and could confuse a LR newbie.

Sorry if I got confusing... my hotdog example was just trying to say it doesn't matter what system you use or what measurements you take - just divide it by 1000. (yeah, my girlfriend yells at me for making unnecessarily complicated examples that ends up just making things more confusing... sorry about that)

I know milliradian is an angular measurement as well. But just for simplicity sake, there is just less math.

Where 1 minute of angle (MOA) at a 100 yards equals 1.047inches or 2.908cm, 1 milliradian at any distance is simply 1/1000 of that distance (so 0.1yards at 100 yards, or 10cm at 100m).

To me, it's just easier not to have to do a bunch of calculations (multiplying by non-whole numbers on the fly). Dividing or multiplying by 1000 is simple. This is especially true when using the scope reticle to estimate range or distance. That's why I like the milliradian system.

Of course, there are many people who have used MOA calculations all their lives, and can do the math pretty quickly, and think intuitively in terms of yards, inches, and MOA. I'm just not one of them

Again, there's no "better" system... it's just preference. I happen to like metric over fractional. But that doesn't mean one system is better than another.

**Lycanthrope** · July 8th, 2010, 01:56 AM

Whatever my ballistics program is capable of using.........

Lycancallmelazythrope

**arrrrgh15** · July 8th, 2010, 01:21 PM

my next scope will be mil/mil when it gets here....hopefully in August.

If the reticle is mil, why not have the adjustments the same?

when the spotter calls out a correction it's in mils.

**Bravo Whiskey** · July 8th, 2010, 09:50 PM

Thanks for all the feedback.
I have been a carpenter for 20 + years. Inches/dims. are very natrual for me. I also understand the ease of the milrad math, to a certain point.
I am new to shooting long range. I have been told that if you have not got used to the Moa format that you should start off w/ Mirad.
I have installed a lot of kitchens w/cabs from Germany where I used a metric tape measure and you kind of get used to it.
I have no problem looking thru a scope and seeing that the hits need adjusting a certain inch value and converting that value for the turrent value and moa X factor for said range.
Last 2 days I checked the forecast both in *f & *c and I get the 101/ 89 a lot better then 38/31 Moa feels better.

**Bravo Whiskey** · July 8th, 2010, 09:53 PM

Originally Posted by arrrrgh15

my next scope will be mil/mil when it gets here....hopefully in August.

If the reticle is mil, why not have the adjustments the same?

when the spotter calls out a correction it's in mils.

I agree but I have seen scopes /read about scopes with both ( Stupid from what I know, just another calculation) so I wanted to be clear.